Member Info for StarBright

If you’re referring to the mention of dilution in the tweet, you’re holding the wrong end of the stick.

The dilution referred to there is a mining term describing the % of non-ore-bearing material that is removed alongside the ore-bearing stuff. Low dilution is a good characteristic - it means that what you’re sending to the processing plant isn’t being bulked out by materials containing no gold. If you have (say) 10% dilution it means you’re spending 10% more than you need to on transportation, processing etc.

In this instance it’s nothing to do with the financing of the company.

Tuan6 - can you stop repeating the falsehood regarding stock lending please? Here is a link to the Halifax T&C; I have copied below the relevant clause. There is no grey area or doubt on this matter. Please just give it a rest - you are making yourself look stupid, or mischievous. Perhaps both.

https://www.halifax.co.uk/assets/pdf/filestore/HalifaxShareDealing_TermsandConds.pdf

“10.10 We will not lend or deposit by way of collateral any investments in your account to a third party”

Do you have ANY evidence to back this assertion is it just an empty ramp..?

ODX is a manufacturer of tests, not a developer SwearinNige. It is Foxconn not Apple.

I hope we are going to discover that the company has played its cards well, by not committing the totality of its production capacity to any one developer or test. Several tests may now be nearing approval. Listening to the CK in the presentations he did late last year he was talking about this as a deliberate strategy. Given the twists and turns in the road we have seen since then - antibody/antigen, in-field efficacy, legal challenges to contract awards etc - this may well turn out to have been a valuable strategy decision. Credit to CK and his team if so.

You might want to check the date of that article.

Siliver is good for me.

Works like hodl. Stick with it..!

Good discussion. Thank you.

Apparently Tom Winnifrith (yes, I appreciate his marmite/panto-villain qualities...) has spoken with Eldur Olaffson and reports that the additional capital required is likely to be debt-funded so there is no current threat of a placing.

Don't waste your time waiting for a further TR1 from L&G. There won't be one. They went below the 3% notification threshold in September last year:

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ODX/holdings-in-company-bujbolxnr7kkywh.html

The link between L&G selling down their ODX position and their outsourcing some client admin to Fidelity exists only in your imagination Trickymatters. I have been trying gently to help you understand this, but I can only explain it to you - I can't understand it for you.

The discussion about L&G's holding is wildly over-played here in any case. According to the Morningstar data, they only own about 2.9m shares https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/odx/ownership. Traded volume this week is approaching 50m shares. They could have exited quite easily without leaving footprints in the market. Any L&G selling hasn't been a major factor in the price action seen this week.

Respectfully - you don’t understand at all. The £5.8bn of assets are within funds that are still managed by L&G. L&G decided that they didn’t want to do the customer servicing any longer, not that they didn’t want to manage the assets.

When you say they wanted to focus on other parts of their business, that is correct. They want to focus on the investment management part, not the customer servicing. You have misinterpreted this because you lack understanding of how the retail investment industry is structured.

You can see a list of the L&G funds holding ODX here: https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xlon/odx/ownership

Nothing has changed as far as the investment decision making in these funds is concerned.

Tricky - L&G haven’t “sold” their investment arm to Fidelity. All they did was transfer client servicing responsibility for £5.8bn (of their £1.2tn..!) of AuM to Fidelity. The transfer had no impact on investment decision making, which is still conducted by L&G.

https://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/lg-announces-sale-of-a-back-book-of-retail-investment-products-to-fidelity-international/

If you don’t understand or have further questions on this, please feel free to ask me here.

My guess - and it is no more than that - is that the market for LFD production machinery became extremely tight in the late summer. At that time the consortium had been established, and the government (more likely it’s EY advisors) decided it was better to step in and purchase the available production machinery centrally, rather than having consortium members compete with each other for it. I believe this approach has been seen/used elsewhere - hospital gases for example.

You mean Movacta...?

Because that’s the price at which the trade was executed. It wasn’t after hours, it was filled during market hours but reported after the market closed. This is normal for larger trades. You can ignore the time stamp given, and you can ignore the indication that it was a buy - it may have been a sell. There is no way of telling.

HTH.

Nalunaq is a long term, capital intensive project as the documentation for the original fund raise made abundantly clear. It is entirely possible that it is NPV +ve to pause development if the costs involved might realistically be significantly lower in a years time. Far better to pause than to press on and then hold a gun to shareholders heads when the money looks like running out.

I listened carefully to the points the CEO made about travel bans, staff costs, steel costs, shipping costs etc. I know from other companies that this is reality. What was forecast to cost 20m might cost 30m if started today. And it might be back to 20m again this time next year. I find all of this credible.

The bulkhead issue sounds like typical mining risk to me. It’s likely the sort of issue that there was some contingency in place for. But I guess that fixing it will be expensive in terms of labour, materials and time.

The flotation circuit is - for me - a harder question. If this is such a good idea, why wasn’t it in the original plan?

The company has said that it may need more capital, and that it plans to consult with shareholders. Best case scenario is that one or two of the existing shareholders (perhaps the SWF..?) can be persuaded to stump up for this in return for a discount, so existing shareholders will have to accept some dilution.

One to watch, but all to play for.

Nothing unexpected or untoward here. RNS content had been well trailed. It's great news, and another step forward for an unassuming and likeable company with great prospects. Those expecting a 5-year government contract with hard-coded volumes and pricing simply lack realism...

Despite frequent assertions here to the contrary, there is/was no wall of private investor money just waiting for the contract announcement. Retail investors had (rather obviously) all positioned ahead of the announcement. Those expecting a massive rise on contract news simply lack realism...

Institutional investors (my professional background) will have been watching, but won't have been sitting on orders waiting for a contract announcement starting gun. It's likely that some small-cap funds and/or discretionary (for HNWI) managers etc will have been happy to pick up the shares being sold in recent days - look for the LIS trades. But those expecting a frenzy of institutional buying post the contract announcement simply lack realism...

It's possible that ODX are sitting on some indications of interest from more serious institutional investors. The type looking to provide stable capital and support over extended timeframes. In an ideal world (for both the company and the potential investors) there will be a core group making the right noises about long-term commitment etc. They'll gain entry via a private placing, with their capital funding future expansion plans beyond the scope of those discussed to date. Such a placing - even if executed at a modest discount - will be an EXTREMELY positive development for the company and its existing shareholders. Those denying or decrying this possibility simply lack realism...

All the posts here today talking about disappointing results in the core business, bad year etc are just vexatious drivel and can be safely ignored. The company has been increasing its manufacturing capabilities (and therefore its cost base) for months as we all know. We now have formal confirmation of the reasons for this, together with an indication (the year end cash position) that the scaling-up has been conducted with care. This is a sign of a well-managed business.

Equally, the posts here today telling you that this has been "de-risked" and will shortly "multi-bag" are also vexatious drivel that should be ignored. ODX faces significant risks in execution, from competitors, from regulation, from politics etc etc etc. Professional investors will understand that there is enough risk on the table for future returns to be strong. This is a positive - without risk there is no return.

Shareholders departing have hopefully made some money. They might be tempted to have another crack from a higher start-point, such is the irrationality of the retail market! Shareholders choosing to stay on board have a lot to look forward to.

As I said, no alarms and no surprises...

100%.

Some regular posters have SO let themselves down by getting involved in this. It's been truly pathetic.

Exped DownMat 7LW looks great.

Do you use hot air to inflate it Regulator?

Agreed.